HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
AnitaSacramento 
-
-
|
People often assume that this rose is the same as "Lijiang Road Climber," but it is not. "Phillips & Rix Pink China Climber" is definitely a China, while "Lijiang Road Climber" is a Tea.
|
REPLY
|
|
I would love to try it in Florida. I have the book in my living room and I never noticed the difference in Class. Thank You for clearing that up for me.
Regards,
Andrew Grover
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
3 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
|
It's a bit odd to classify it as a China if it only flowers once annually, though. Perhaps it is a hybrid of a China and something else.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
3 FEB 23 by
jedmar
|
Rosa chinensis spontanea, the wild form, is also once-blooming, with a few blooms later.
|
REPLY
|
|
There are other once-blooming climbing roses from China, which are rather hard to classify. People kept confusing this rose with Lijiang Rd, another once-bloomer large climber, which clearly has gigantea heritage. This rose shows no trace of gigantea and is much more china-like in every feature, including the green color of the new growth and the shape of the receptacle, sepals and blossoms. .
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
4 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
|
While the lines between horticultural classes and botanical taxa have been pretty well blurred in roses, it seems to me that a China rose as a member of the traditionally understood class (cultivar Group) assignment should simply not possess once-flowering behavior.
As for the supposedly "wild form" of Rosa × chinensis, it has not been scientifically demonstrated that those wild populations are actually conspecific with Rosa × chinensis, whose type was a cultivated crimson China belonging to a group that DNA evidence suggests are really hybrids. It's pretty clear from the relevant studies produced so far that the taxon being called R. chinensis var. spontanea is a progenitor species of R. × chinensis, but it is not the sole progenitor species. The assignment of such wild forms to R. × chinensis without DNA evidence at a time when it should have been possible to perform the needed studies was pretty clearly influenced by a strong confirmation bias, but it has not been supported by molecular evidence. It isn't rational to recircumscribe a species that was based on a cultivated type of unclear origins and that could be a hybrid to include a wild taxon, and it makes just as little sense to broaden the circumscription of a well-established cultivar Group (class) to incorporate features of that wild taxon without clear scientific evidence.
For one study that examines the genetic relationship between a cultivated member of R. × chinensis and "R. chinensis var. spontanea," see: www.researchgate.net/publication/236941747_Untangling_the_hybrid_origin_of_the_Chinese_tea_roses_Evidence_from_DNA_sequences_of_single-copy_nuclear_and_chloroplast_genes
From my perspective, the assignment of that apparently wild taxon to Rosa × chinensis was on par with the recognition by some of Rosa gigantea as a variety of its own hybrid, Rosa × odorata. Like Rosa × odorata, it appears that Rosa × chinensis should be regarded as a hybrid. Assignment of a progenitor species to its own hybrid is paradoxical.
To me, a "once-blooming China" is something of a contradiction in terms.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
looking for cutting from Mint Julep
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
From the Heritage Rose Foundation newsletter, Sept, 2021, page 8.
‘Arnold’—Lost in Plain Sight
A N I T A C L E V E N G E R
Heritage Rose Foundation members learned about Arnold Arboretum’s Jackson Dawson and his rugosa hybrid
‘Arnold’ in 2017, thanks to a lecture from Benjamin Whiteacre at our Fredericksburg, VA conference and an
article that he wrote for our October 2017 newsletter. ‘Arnold’, a cross between a Rugosa and Hybrid Perpetual
‘Gen. Jacqueminot’ introduced in 1893, was one of Dawson’s triumphs: beautiful, healthy and repeat-blooming. He proudly
named it in honor of the Harvard University arboretum where he worked. Unfortunately, the fashion for rugosas was
waning. After brief popularity, ‘Arnold’ was virtually forgotten.
In 2018, it was thought that the rose was probably lost altogether in the United States. Helpmefind.com listed it in
Brooklyn’s Cranford Rose Garden, in Arnold Arboretum, and in the Friends of Vintage Rose’s collection, but it was not
with any of the three. In our newsletter, we asked our readers to help us find it.
Earlier this year, I visited Don Gers’ and Michael Tallman’s garden, Rose Woods, near Santa Rosa, CA. I spotted
a garnet-red, semi-double rugosa and was astonished to read its label. It was ‘Arnold’! This rose didn’t know it was lost,
and neither did its growers. How did it come to be there? Don Gers dug up a root division from rose collector Marion
McKinsey’s Sebastopol, CA garden in 1996. She got it from Gregg Lowery, who in turn obtained it from the late Mike
Lowe in New Hampshire. There the trail stops, but it’s known that Mike took rose cuttings from Arnold Arboretum as
well as Cranford.
Is this Dawson’s original ‘Arnold’? There is a 1994 herbarium specimen at Harvard, and a few photos and a botanical
illustration. So far, our ‘Arnold’ seems the same. Further study and analysis could confirm or deny this.
Don and Michael sent cuttings to HRF Trustee Dr. Malcolm Manners at Florida Southern College. He has propagated
it, and found that it struck readily. He is growing additional plants to send to Arnold Arboretum, whose Keeper of the
Living Collections, Dr. Michael Dosmann, is eager to add it to their collection and study it further. Malcolm and I will also
work to get ‘Arnold’ to commercial nurseries and public gardens to ensure that its future is never again in jeopardy.
One rose preserved, many more to go. ❧
note: In his article and lecture, Benjamin Whitacre theorized that the hybrid rugosa grown as ‘America’ in Europe is
synonymous with ‘Arnold’. We are excited to evaluate the new find against herbarium specimens and potential Arnold
plants from Sangerhausen and to continue to examine that possibility. Limited review of hip production on the Santa
Rosa ‘Arnold’ has cast some new doubts. Many thanks to Ben for pursuing this matter, and to Don Gers and Dr. Malcolm
Manners for lending their expertise and observation skills. a.c.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for adding this reference Anita. I found the story of ‘Arnold’ most interesting.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Tina Marie was not discovered by Phillip Robinson. We received this at Vintage Gardens from the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden; I think Mel Hulse can shed light on its origin.
Gregg Lowery
|
REPLY
|
|
Tina Marie was one of the roses originally planted in the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden. Unfortunately, I no longer have a reference as to where we got it beyond it having been grown for the Heritage by Tom Liggett. As Tom is a great fan of Grandmother's Hat with a several in his home garden and as Grandmother's.Hat frequently puts out color sports, It is possible the he discovered it.
Mel Hulse
|
REPLY
|
|
Tom Liggett has confirmed that he discovered and named Tina Marie. Please correct the HMF listing accordingly. It was not discovered by Gregg Lowery and Phillip Robinson, and Gregg does not claim that it was his discovery in the comments above. Thanks!
|
REPLY
|
|
Hello Anita,
Corrected. I have used the same discovery date, 1998, as we had previously.
I wonder if we should merge ‘Tina Marie’ with ‘Larry Daniels’ 1995. Both are sports of ‘Grandmother’s Hat’ and both were discovered by Tom Liggett. It seems the sport is quite variable in colour.
My regards.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Patricia. No, they are distinct. Larry Daniels is different in color. Grandmother's Hat sports readily - I have seen a pale colored version in a neighbor's garden.
|
REPLY
|
|
OK. I read the Members Comments in both roses’ pages and got the impression that they are not distinct. Jill seemed to think they were probably the same. There seems to be variability in the colour in the photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
In our garden, 'Tina Marie' and 'Larry Daniels' were a quite different color tone.
L.D. only once produced a white bloom, and NEVER produced multiple shades on a bloom, which 'Tina Marie' does FREQUENTLY. I think it would be a mistake to equate them.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
